Tuna I

Tuna I in Global Commerce Policy

In this regard, tuna i is: a dispute in the GATT between Mexico and the United States. The dispute arose from a prohibition mandated by the United States Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 concerning the “taking” (harassing, hunting, capture, killing or attempts to do so) of marine mammals and the import of marine mammals except where an authorization had been issued. The entries on trade policy are here. In specified circumstances, the ban on imports could be extended to other fishery products. The aim of the Act was to reduce to insignificant levels approaching zero the incidental kill or serious injury of marine mammals during commercial fishing. The entries on trade policy are here. A practice targeted particularly by the Act was purse-seine fishing of tuna, a fishing technique aimed at the catch of yellowfin tuna fish. The entries on trade policy are here. At the same time, it produced, especially in the case of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, significant catches of dolphins because they tend to occupy the same waters as yellowfin tuna. The Act set numerical limits on the taking of marine mammals, and there were procedures in place for other countries to show that they met the requirements of the Act. The entries on trade policy in the Encyclopedia are here. On 10 October 1990 the United States imposed an embargo on tuna from Mexico in retaliation to the alleged taking of marine mammals. This was confirmed on 3 April 1991 with the inclusion in the ban also of Venezuela and Vanuatu. The Act provided that embargoes are effective against intermediary countries also, and this provision was enforced through the need for a certificate of origin. The ban on imports from offending countries was reinforced through a labelling standard for any tuna exported from or offered for sale in the United States. Mexico made three main claims. First, the embargo provisions contained in the Act violated GATT Article XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions), and their enforcement against specific geographical areas was in breach of Article XIII (Non-discriminatory Administration of Quantitative Restrictions). Second, the condition of comparison between yellowfin tuna regulation in the United States and other countries violated Article III (National Treatment), especially as it relates to “all laws, regulations or requirements” affecting products, rather than producers. Third, the possibility of an import ban on all fishery products from Mexico also violated Article XI. The United States rejected all of these claims. The entries on trade policy are here. As in a similar case launched against it by Canada in 1982, the United States based its defence mainly on GATT Article XX (General Exceptions) which allows a GATT member to disregard other GATT provisions in strictly defined circumstances. The entries on trade policy are here. Accordingly, it claimed that if there was any doubt whether the United States measures were consistent with the GATT, Article XX would ensure that the measures were not inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT. The entries on trade policy are here. Its measures were necessary to protect the lives or health of dolphins and were therefore justified under Article XX(b). The entries on trade policy are here. A government could in any case prohibit imports of a product to protect the life or health of humans, plants or animals outside its jurisdiction. The United States also invoked Article XX(g) covering measures “relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption”. Dolphin populations would not be able to sustain themselves if the mortality rate remained too high. The United States had also imposed comprehensive restrictions on domestic production practices expressly to conserve dolphins, and these were more stringent than those applied to production by foreign vessels. The entries on trade policy are here. Additionally, Article XX(g) did not restrict the types of conservation measures that could be taken. More generally, United States measures did not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries because the Act applied to all countries harvesting yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean with purse- seine nets. They were not applied to other marine areas because no evidence existed that there was a similar threat to dolphins from tuna harvesting elsewhere. The panel found that the direct ban on the import of certain yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products was not in conformity with the requirements of GATT Article XI:1. The entries on trade policy are here. As for the law on the possible extension of the ban to all fishery product imports from Mexico, the panel recalled the ruling in Superfund that legislation merely giving executive authorities the power to act inconsistently with the GATT is not in itself inconsistent with the GATT. The panel rejected the extraterritorial application of Article XX(b) in the light of its drafting history which made it clear that it only applied to the importing country. The entries on trade policy are here. It did not accept either that Article XX(g) could be applied extraterritorially since this would enable a party to impose its conservation policies on another. The entries on trade policy are here. It also noted that the unpredictable conditions resulting from the application of the Act meant that it could not be regarded primarily as aimed at conservation. The panel applied a similar reasoning to the ban on imports from intermediary countries, and that it was inconsistent with Article XX(d) also which allows the adoption or enforcement of measures necessary to ensure compliance with laws or regulations not inconsistent with the GATT. The entries on trade policy are here. In its concluding remarks, the panel noted that the provisions of the GATT impose few constraints on a member’s ability to implement domestic environmental policies. The entries on trade policy in the Encyclopedia are here. On the other hand, a member may not restrict imports of a product merely because it originates in a country with environmental policies different from its own. See also herring and salmon, tuna (Canada United States, 1982), Tuna II, general exceptions and trade and environment.[1]

Tuna Iin the wold Encyclopedia

For an introductory overview on international trade policy, see this entry.

Resources

Notes and References

1. Dictionary of Trade Policy, “Tuna I” entry (OAS)

See Also